Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), is a 2012-term United States Supreme Court case revolving around Arizona's unique voter registration requirements, including the necessity of providing documentary proof of citizenship. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Arizona's registration requirements were unlawful because they were preempted by federal voting laws.[1]
Gonzalez v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010); on rehearing en banc, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568U.S. 962 (2012).
Holding
Arizona's evidence-of-citizenship requirement, as applied to Federal Form applicants, is pre-empted by the National Voter Registration Act's mandate for states "accept and use" the Federal Form.
The Arizona voter registration requirements arose from a 2004 Arizona proposition, Arizona Proposition 200 (2004), which was a ballot initiative designed in part "to combat voter fraud by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on election day."[2] The state law requires, besides other things, persons to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote, and requires voter-registration officials to "reject" any application for registration, including a Federal Form under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship.
A group of Arizona residents and a group of nonprofit organizations challenged the Arizona law in court. The District Court of Arizona granted Arizona summary judgment on the respondents' claim that the federal Act preempts Arizona's requirement. In October 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed, holding that the state's requirement of documentary proof of citizenship is invalid as being preempted by the registration provision in the federal NVRA, at least when an applicant uses the National Mail Voter Registration Form (the "Federal Form") to register to vote in federal elections, and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid.[3][1]
However, in April 2011, the court granted Arizona's petition for en banc review of this ruling, and it heard oral arguments on June 21, 2011.[4] In April 2012, the en banc court also held that the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote is invalid as preempted by the NVRA and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid.[5] The Supreme Court of the United States declined to stay the ruling on June 28, 2012.[6] In July 2012, Arizona petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling.[7] The Supreme Court granted the petition in October 2012,[8] and it heard oral arguments on March 18, 2013.[9]
Opinion of the Courtedit
On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled against Arizona in a 7–2 decision, which struck down the state law. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, confirming the Ninth Circuit's rulings and holding that the state requirements relating to voter registrations were pre-empted by the federal NVRA law,[1] which mandates states to "accept and use" the Federal Form. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. However, the Court also suggested ways for Arizona to overcome the hurdle.[10] The 7-2 Decision stated “Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held, but not who may vote in them. The latter is the province of the states.” However, because Attorney General Tom Horne’s predecessor as Attorney General had not appealed an adverse decision by the commission, the case was sent back for a new petition to the commission to be appealed. It was consolidated with a 10th circuit case, which ruled adversely, and the Supreme Court chose not to review a second time. The Court also held that Arizona may petition to have more requirements added to the federal standard.[1]
^Gonzales v. Arizona, 624 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010).
^Arizona Attorney General Press Release: "Horne Argues in Favor of Arizona's Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote" September 30, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
^Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012).
^Arizona, et al. v. Abeytia, et al., No. 11-A-1189 (order), (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2012)
^Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et. al, Petition for Writ of Certiorari (U.S. Supreme Court, July 16, 2012)
^Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council, Grant of Petition for Writ of Certiorari (U.S. Supreme Court, October 15, 2012)
^Arizona, et. al., Petitioners, v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., Transcript of Oral Argument 2017-02-11 at the Wayback Machine (U.S. Supreme Court, March 18, 2013)
^Marty Lederman (June 17, 2013). "Pyrrhic victory for federal government in Arizona voter registration case?". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved July 6, 2013.
Text of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570U.S. 1 (2013) is available from:Google ScholarJustiaOyez (oral argument audio)
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona official web site
January 01, 1970
arizona, inter, tribal, council, arizona, 2013, 2012, term, united, states, supreme, court, case, revolving, around, arizona, unique, voter, registration, requirements, including, necessity, providing, documentary, proof, citizenship, decision, supreme, court,. Arizona v Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc 570 U S 1 2013 is a 2012 term United States Supreme Court case revolving around Arizona s unique voter registration requirements including the necessity of providing documentary proof of citizenship In a 7 2 decision the Supreme Court held that Arizona s registration requirements were unlawful because they were preempted by federal voting laws 1 Arizona v Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc Supreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 18 2013Decided June 17 2013Full case nameArizona et al Petitioners v The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc et al Docket no 12 71Citations570 U S 1 more 133 S Ct 2247 186 L Ed 2d 239Case historyPriorGonzalez v Arizona 624 F 3d 1162 9th Cir 2010 on rehearing en banc 677 F 3d 383 9th Cir 2012 cert granted 568 U S 962 2012 HoldingArizona s evidence of citizenship requirement as applied to Federal Form applicants is pre empted by the National Voter Registration Act s mandate for states accept and use the Federal Form Court membershipChief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia Anthony KennedyClarence Thomas Ruth Bader GinsburgStephen Breyer Samuel AlitoSonia Sotomayor Elena KaganCase opinionsMajorityScalia joined by Roberts Ginsburg Breyer Sotomayor Kagan Kennedy in part ConcurrenceKennedy in part DissentThomasDissentAlitoLaws appliedNational Voter Registration Act amp Elections Clause Contents 1 Background 2 Opinion of the Court 3 See also 4 References 5 External linksBackground editThe Arizona voter registration requirements arose from a 2004 Arizona proposition Arizona Proposition 200 2004 which was a ballot initiative designed in part to combat voter fraud by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on election day 2 The state law requires besides other things persons to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and requires voter registration officials to reject any application for registration including a Federal Form under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 that is not accompanied by documentary evidence of citizenship A group of Arizona residents and a group of nonprofit organizations challenged the Arizona law in court The District Court of Arizona granted Arizona summary judgment on the respondents claim that the federal Act preempts Arizona s requirement In October 2010 the Ninth Circuit Court reversed holding that the state s requirement of documentary proof of citizenship is invalid as being preempted by the registration provision in the federal NVRA at least when an applicant uses the National Mail Voter Registration Form the Federal Form to register to vote in federal elections and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid 3 1 However in April 2011 the court granted Arizona s petition for en banc review of this ruling and it heard oral arguments on June 21 2011 4 In April 2012 the en banc court also held that the requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote is invalid as preempted by the NVRA and that the requirement to provide voter identification at the polling place is valid 5 The Supreme Court of the United States declined to stay the ruling on June 28 2012 6 In July 2012 Arizona petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit s ruling 7 The Supreme Court granted the petition in October 2012 8 and it heard oral arguments on March 18 2013 9 Opinion of the Court editOn June 17 2013 the Supreme Court ruled against Arizona in a 7 2 decision which struck down the state law Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion confirming the Ninth Circuit s rulings and holding that the state requirements relating to voter registrations were pre empted by the federal NVRA law 1 which mandates states to accept and use the Federal Form Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented However the Court also suggested ways for Arizona to overcome the hurdle 10 The 7 2 Decision stated Arizona is correct that the Elections Clause empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held but not who may vote in them The latter is the province of the states However because Attorney General Tom Horne s predecessor as Attorney General had not appealed an adverse decision by the commission the case was sent back for a new petition to the commission to be appealed It was consolidated with a 10th circuit case which ruled adversely and the Supreme Court chose not to review a second time The Court also held that Arizona may petition to have more requirements added to the federal standard 1 Considered with the text of the House Electors Qualifications Clause of Article I Section II the Elections Clause of Article II Section I and the 17th Amendment the Court s concluded that the Elections Clause of Article I Section IV empowers Congress to regulate how federal elections are held but not who may vote in them and that the holding in Oregon v Mitchell 1970 on Section 302 of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 that permitted Congress to preempt state voter qualifications for minimum voting age in federal elections under the Equal Protection Clause was of minimal precedential value to the decision 11 See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 570References edit a b c d Arizona v Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc 570 U S 1 2013 Purcell v Gonzalez 549 U S 1 2 2006 per curiam Gonzales v Arizona 624 F 3d 1162 9th Cir 2010 Arizona Attorney General Press Release Horne Argues in Favor of Arizona s Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship to Vote Archived September 30 2011 at the Wayback Machine Gonzalez v Arizona 677 F 3d 383 9th Cir 2012 Arizona et al v Abeytia et al No 11 A 1189 order U S Supreme Court June 28 2012 Arizona v Inter Tribal Council of Arizona et al Petition for Writ of Certiorari U S Supreme Court July 16 2012 Arizona v Inter Tribal Council Grant of Petition for Writ of Certiorari U S Supreme Court October 15 2012 Arizona et al Petitioners v The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc Transcript of Oral Argument Archived 2017 02 11 at the Wayback Machine U S Supreme Court March 18 2013 Marty Lederman June 17 2013 Pyrrhic victory for federal government in Arizona voter registration case SCOTUSBlog Retrieved July 6 2013 Arizona v Inter Tribal Council of Ariz Inc 570 U S 1 13 15 2013 External links editText of Arizona v Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc 570 U S 1 2013 is available from Google Scholar Justia Oyez oral argument audio Supreme Court slip opinion archived Inter Tribal Council of Arizona official web site Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Arizona v Inter Tribal Council of Arizona Inc amp oldid 1175138563, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
